The thorny way of truth - Free Energy Community

J. P. WESLEY, Ph.D. Physicist- 227 -Welherdanmstr. 24, 7712 Blimberg, West Germany, Tel: 07702-658Dear Stefan,12 April 1990Enclosed is the first 1/3rd of the book I am writing with thepretentious title ADVANCED FUNDAMENTAL PHYSICS. Any help, suggestions,corrections, changes, alterations, etc. that you can send me would bemost greatly appreciated. Please note especially Chapter 4. Here Ilean heavily on your "hitch-hiker" model for light propagation in amoving medium. I feel it is correct to second order in v/c, and notmerely to first order, like the Fresnel ether drag idea. I hope you seethe beauty of Hoek's experiment! It is sort of like sitting back andscratching your navel to discover truths of the universe.You say on page 216, line 13 etc., of your THORNY WAY OF TRUTH PARTVII that with independent toothed-wheels one cannot know therelative phase of the two spinning wheels. Ycu are wrong!!! Ore can,of course, know and adjust the relative phase as one wishes. If you hadactually bothered to study my paper you would see that the relativephase is measured very accurately by a method of triangulation. Twobeams from wheel one,coi^^e£gii)g slightly, pass through two gaps in wheeltwo. Measuring relative^mtensity differences to 1 tr[£__the n__ g ives t herelative angular position of the two toothed v^eels /TCv^ich^^re turning^at the same rate accurate enough for the determination of the absolutevelocity of the laboratory).You, like all the "true believers" in 'special relativit/', inventproblems that don't exist in order to support your thesis. You havesome nonsensical idea, like all the other believers in "specialrelativity" that clocks must be "synchronized"; therefore, Nexperiment is possible that can possibly refute your dogmatic,unwarranted, stupid claim! You close your mind conpletely! You cannoteven read a single experiment to see what it involves. And v\^at is moreirritating is your perpetual claim to be against "special relativity".You are stuck at the Builder level of "special relativity". You, likeProkovnik,* are an apologist for "special relativity". If you wouldadmit your rigid religious conviction that "special relativity" is right,then one could more readily understand what you try to say. This is thereason, I assume, for your refuting the obvious experiments to claim theBiot-Savart law; it is the law necessary for "special relativity". Etc.I wish you were not so rigid and could learn. I wish you were able tosee when you are wrong. I have changed my mind a dozen times aboutthings since I have known you; I cannot recall that you have everchanged your mind about a single thing! Your stance is charaterized byyour "axiomatic physics"; no science can be "axiomatic". No physicstheory can ever be correct in any absolute sense; it is only correct towithin experimental error and or else to within certain conveniencecriteria. One has to be ready to change with the changing evidence!Also see inclosed a preprint showing that terrestrial Bradleyaberration cannot be observed. I have changed my mind ! I was wrong!Yes, count me in on the Milano Conference. It is good that you areso charming, talented, intelligent, amusing and that you are a gentleman(I am not!); so that I can value vas a good friend; because I do notapprove of much of your physics. (^^)Prokhovnik